Opponents of Anthroposophy

Opponents to Anthroposophy

Schmidt Number: S-4386

On-line since: 31st December, 1969

Lecture by Rudolf Steiner

Dornach, 8 February 1921

I
have taken on to still give this lecture before the approaching
lengthy voyage regarding what relates to important tasks of the
Anthroposophical movement — at least with the intention
that important tasks need to be spoken about. Through some
aphorisms I want to bring things to your attention today. We
have every reason to examine the historic development of the
Anthroposophical movement again, and will again because this
Anthroposophical movement depends on those who want to be its
bearers and that they this up and understand it in the right
way. We should continuously bear in mind the circumstances out
of which, through its own nature, through its entire being,
this Anthroposophical movement grew at a stage which enabled it
to find its existence to a certain extent unnoticed by the
world. This fact we dare never overlook, for it is one of the
most important facts in the development of the Anthroposophical
movement. We need to be very clear how the Anthroposophical
movement had begun and actually had to come into being, because
one can only create true relationships out of something real,
where small groups came together and work was done by these
small cooperating groups. These small groups however
multiplied, this we can't deny, contributing something
scrupulously sectarian out of the old Theosophic movement. From
different sides it was adopted, one could say, like a working
habit by some of our members; but then again there were those
to whom the content of what is meant in this anthroposophic
spiritual science was such that from the beginning, it was
impossible to fit any kind of sectarian behaviour into it. It
clearly entered everyone strongly and was visible in each
individual in the way it was encountered when the Goetheanum
Building had been started in Dornach. It was considered
possible by many of those in the member's circles that such a
building could be created in the world by still retaining old
sectarian customs. Such sectarian traditions are all too
understandable, they are usually in all Theosophical Societies
and in orders where most of them work in a manner which could
be called obscure, where things are thoroughly avoided which
should in fact be examined if a movement strives to uphold a
generally humane character.

The
work habits in certain orders and in the Theosophical movement
can therefore not be applied to the content which is worked
through in the Anthroposophical movement, because this
Anthroposophical movement, despite speaking to the hearts and
minds of every single person, at the same time was fully
developed in all scientific challenges from the start, but
could only be as it were presented in the present time. The
latter is a fact which has not been taken seriously from many
sides amongst the membership. It is characteristic that people
prefer to remain completely stuck within a habit originating
from tradition or from the course of life. Within the course of
life it presents a certain isolated territory for you. This is
not in agreement with what your religious tradition has brought
you, it is in agreement with what the popular spreading of a
world view offers you and now you feel a certain satisfaction
when something is offered which surpasses that, which is
equally from religious tradition as also from the general,
wide, popular point of view of the modern materialistic thought
processes which are able to come out of a newer time. However,
you still prefer to a certain extent what is a given, because
you allow yourself, I want to say, in a kind of Sunday
pleasure, something which exists but doesn't intervene in a
disruptive manner with ordinary life.

A
movement such as the Anthroposophical one which reckons with
the life forces of the present, naturally can't do this. Such a
movement seizes the entire human being, involves every single
detail of life. You can't consider it as something on the side.
You may well enter into certain conflicting details because
these things are absolutely unavoidable, and it doesn't allow
living within the present lifetime habits in the various areas,
through submitting on the one side to what life has presented
and act as a courageous philistine, and on the other side,
continue with your reading of Anthroposophy, accepting through
your heart and mind the Anthroposophical life. You see, this
would be the most comfortable way, but it denies the content of
vital human evolutionary forces which Anthroposophically
orientated spiritual science singles out in the present. Just
as little as the Anthroposophically orientated spiritual
science which necessitates a wide view and a truthful gaze on
what moves within mankind and worldly life, can it be united
with what is loved in the trade of some circles, which intend,
out of a soul lust, the creation of small, inaccessible,
obscure circles which demonstrate all kinds of illusions, carry
out all kinds of obscure mysticism and so on. Such things are
completely unable to be unified into the anthroposophic, wide
world view of all life's relationships regarded through
spiritual science. It is already necessary that these things
appear in all clarity to the souls of our members, who need to
break off all sectarian usages, because today the
Anthroposophically orientated spiritual science stands in such
a situation in the world that it can be attacked from all
sides, and be besmirched from all sides. Usually this doesn't
happen to some kind of obscure movement. I can let you
anticipate a symptom right now which you can find if you take
the February edition of the monthly “Die Tat.”
Later on I want to speak in greater depth about what makes this
“Tat” issue so symptomatic. It appears to actually
orientate the entire issue to the Anthroposophical movement
which is treated, in this case by a completely untalented
author, in what I might call a brutal clarity.

Here you have an article — the whole thing is an article
— from the start to the end of the issue, regarding
Anthroposophy — which deals with “Anthroposophy and
Christianity,” and only stems from a particularly
untalented creator. In this article you will find, I may say,
pointed out with awkward fingers, the basis, why at this time,
seen from the outside, so many discussions are taking place
regarding what the orientation is of spiritual science. The man
says: “As long as Anthroposophy is esoterically
maintained in circles, it can be left to their own devices,
like in so many other side streams of spiritual histories.
However, if one comes to the fore with a claim which is to
renew the viable basis of social renewal as well as public,
political and social life on the basis of thought and
its second- and third-hand budding `truths,' then it is time to
see through this cultural and spiritually favoured `esoteric
lore' and duly reject their borders in order that
truthful powers of renewal do not become forerunners
blamed of false evidence.

“Our generation however, who turns towards Anthroposophy
in great crowds, create a symbol like the moving scene in the
First Book of Samuel, when Saul, renounced by God before the
day of his death, prove the augury true.”

You
see what gives people the reason to run down Anthroposophy? It
is clearly here where the cumbersome fingers indicated express
it in the sentence: “Our generation however, who turn
towards Anthroposophy in great crowds ...” It is this,
that Anthroposophy also contains certain effective origins
within itself, from which one could say that people —
forgive me when I repeat the expression, it is tasteless enough
even if one can't imagine it, what “great crowds”
can be — that people turn to Anthroposophy in
“great crowds.” However it is this which causes the
attacks and people would certainly leave us in peace if we
would have been active for instance, let's say, in the years
1900 to 1907 or 1909. I personally would also not have been
left in peace in those days, but anyway the attacks came, I
could say, from a more restrictive corner and were not as
wilfully destructive as they are now.

What appears to be thoroughly difficult to understand to those
close to our movement, is the necessity to extract ourselves
from sectarianism. You see one can renounce all the rest
— many self-explanatory things can be stated — but
one can't refer to such a building as the Dornach Building and
still support certain obscure sectarian usages, which are being
maintained by many of our members in the Anthroposophical
movement. One can't do it any other way. One can't without a
certain sophisticated sense, without a broader view of the
world do what we do: regarding the way in which we do it. One
could sit together in small circles, whether six or forty
people, it's the same thing, and somehow make someone
broadcast, on my account, something regarding the reincarnation
of the holy Magdalene or Christ, or whatever. If it doesn't
originate from closer circles one can do it and indulge
ecstatically in soul experiences. One can't for instance
publically present something like our Eurythmy without having a
certain sense about the world. It is assumed that those who
participate in such a movement, will have no peeved or no
narrow-minded sense but a sense of the world, that one doesn't
have some kind of sectarian airs and graces nor such
affectations leading to only feeling comfortable in small
circles, but it is assumed that one brings together everything
connected to the world into what such a movement itself should
be, which is not merely a movement of a world view, but
includes everything spiritual and actually human life as well.
Therefore it is by now necessary for discussions to take place
about various spiritual or other movements existing in the
world today. Sectarianism has the peculiarity of frequently
being haughty and disdainful about everything which is outside
its framework and does not understand what is on the outside
and want to be cut off and be isolated. With us this can't at
all be sustained in the long term. If our movement wants to be
taken seriously it is certainly necessary that this or that is
not continuously chattered about as it is often done, but it is
necessary that we should — I must ever and again use this
expression — acquire a certain world sense which enables
understanding for what is going on, resulting in a point of
view taken from Anthroposophical spiritual science, in order to
clarify and treat these things. This is necessary in all areas.
Certainly, one may say, someone or other doesn't have the
possibility to do this or that. Indeed, one can't expect
someone or other to do this or that if the person doesn't get
the opportunity. We have actually been able to have extensive
experiences of this during the last weeks when certain
individuals in our movement have now also decided to act. As a
result something quite terrible has come to the fore. It must
be added that it is perhaps not absolutely necessary to expect
anyone to do what he or she doesn't find suitable. Something is
absolutely necessary, namely to abstain from certain things,
because certain things, which are not carried out, work further
in the most fruitful way.

My
dear friends, I don't mean it in such a way that one could say:
We are therefore encouraged not to participate in any way.
— No, I don't mean this; I mean refraining from certain
things which we can already see is of a gossipy or unreasonable
nature. It is so, to take only one example, that folly
refrained from being expressed in gatherings, finds a way to
expresses itself in the opposition members of our movement.

These things are of course difficult to discuss because as soon
as something is presented in some false way to the world one
can say it becomes a blind act of will attracting blind
supporters. Thatis absolutely notthe case,
but it is about thosethingswhich as a
result ofunrefinedtactlessness,in turn
in the mostterribleway preventthings
fromworking. Hence, when a saying is
continuously repeated by our members, for example from
something I have refrained from doing or saying, then we will
naturally as an Anthroposophical movement not make any
progress. I want to again mention the example, which is found
in this “Tat” publication.

You
see, it is really out of our membership's requests that such
things come about, like cycles (of lectures) simply being
printed as they were copied, while the work of the
Anthroposophical movement is not given the time to do things in
the way they should actually be done. The demand for printing
the cycles has indeed originated from members, but normally
something like this arises without anyone developing a feeling
of responsibility for such a thing. It is natural that
something like this arises from the members but a sense of
responsibility must develop to not allow a distortion of it.
This appears in the most harsh way in the February edition of
the “Tat,” where it is said: “I don't want to
spend time regarding Steiner who has left some of his disciples
to edit the shorthand notes of a part of his esoteric lectures,
for example the Evangelists, without taking on the
responsibility to bother himself with it any further (as
it is strictly assured on the title-page).”

These things should not be propagated further because of my
needs, but because the Anthroposophical society needs it; it
requires however at the same time that this Anthroposophical
society develops a sense of responsibility for that which is
necessary for its own sake, not for my sake, not always
striking back on me personally because as a result it restricts
me representing Anthroposophy as such in the appropriate way
towards the world. It is quite necessary that this must be
clearly understood otherwise what the Anthroposophical society
really presents will in the widest sense prohibit the actual
spreading of the Anthroposophic way. I should naturally become
much more strict as we face a more serious situation here, than
what has merely happened up to now through goodwill amongst the
members. Besides, what is to be said in this area nevertheless
has to be said. In this context I want to stress once again
that it is not enough to merely disprove opposition as it has
frequently happened in this way, when from this or that side
the opposition turns against us — I have mentioned this
already the day before yesterday. Such dismissals which have to
be made now and then out of necessity, are worthless, supports
nothing really, because today there are definite categories or
groups of people who are active in a spiritual or other life,
who have nothing to do with people who represent a rebuff and
with whom it somehow comes down to a defence, a rebuff, but
here we have people who do not care to spread the truth but
with whom it finally comes down to spreading untruths.

Thus it is very necessary in such a strong and thoroughly
spiritual movement which the Anthroposophical movement is, to
point out interrelationships. One can't skip certain events
because they become repetitive. For instance, I recently
received a letter in which it was written that the writer had
turned to the famous Max Dessoir, to this Max Dessoir
who has been characterised as adequate among Anthroposophists
for his moral and intellectual qualities. Now the relevant
person wrote to me that he had a conversation with this Max
Dessoir. Obviously such a person as Dessoir can't be converted
by a conversation, that we must spare him — because
firstly he doesn't want it and secondly it appears stupid to
him to have to understand something Anthroposophically. So it
makes no sense to try some way or another to continue a
discussion with such an individual.

During conversations it also came out that Max Dessoir soon
would write a piercing statement against me and my letter
writer declared himself available to first read through this
work and correct any mistakes so that Max Dessoir at least
would not make errors! Now, one can hardly believe that such
things, often through celebrities, can actually be done. And
what are the results? When one complains and reproaches the
person concerned, he would possibly say: “If something
like this is not done then it means Anthroposophy doesn't allow
itself to argue with scientific people.” Yes, my dear
friends, we should not think like this. We should not
immediately generalize abstractly, because it concerns the
separate, specific moral and intellectual inability of the
characterised individual Max Dessoir, and one can't do Max
Dessoir the honour by saying we seriously consider him
scientific and that we can't get involved in a discussion due
to a certain inner spiritual cleanliness. These things must
actually be grasped and individually actually followed through
and thought through or otherwise we would really experience
that writings by the opposition could possibly work well and
that no “errors” would appear because these would
have been corrected by our members. It is quite necessary to
discuss these things because we have arrived at a serious time
in our Anthroposophical movement. Much is done this way so one
can say, things come about because we crush them, perhaps
sometimes, as in this case also, quite out of goodwill; but the
best will can turn out quite evil when it is not seriously
— here I must use this word again — enlivened by a
World sense and thought through. This is something which quite
unbelievably often comes from our present Anthroposophical
movement.

You
see, it doesn't come down to being merely defensive today. Yet
if nothing is said in defence, due to the fact that I have
something against defending, it is obvious something must be
done and it calls for the actual characterisation of the
movement as such. In a person such as Frohnmeyer it
doesn't merely concern a bare opponent and aggressor of
Anthroposophy. It is much more important to establish the
manner in which it is done and what kind of sense of truth
controls him. It is far more important to know that this
priest, Frohnmeyer, has developed out of quite a wide mass of
people who are also similar. He is only somewhat freer than the
mass; he represents a type of person within these groups which
are as such really quite large in the world. Today we can't
hope that people who argue from such a basis can't somehow be
converted. It is complete nonsense that they do not wish to be
converted. We do them the greatest favour when we don't present
an opposing truth but stupidities, because then their values
are better challenged. So it doesn't come down to mere defence
against such people. This would result in an endless discourse
of statement and counter-statement. What it boils down to is to
characterize out of what spiritual ground and basis this
originates and what it means for the entire dampening and
degeneration of our present spiritual life. From this general
sophisticated viewpoint things must at all costs be lifted
because one can hardly remain stuck at mere defensive nagging
and counter nagging. This is really what doesn't concern us
because for us the concern is about the all-inclusive
characteristics of these spiritual endeavours which need to be
conquered today. Only through doing this can we effectively
counter the Frohnmeyers, Gogartens, Bruhns and Leeses. It's not
so tremendously important that someone within such a movement
has the time to sit down and write a book; this anyone with a
little learning can do, but it depends out of which spiritual
foundation these things are presented to the world. One must be
completely clear that people like Frohnmeyer can't criticize
Anthroposophy differently than the way they do it. One should
refrain from the personal. For me it never depends upon the
personal. I never want to defend or attack a Frohnmeyer or
Bruhns or Heinselmann or whoever they are all called, but I
want to characterize this existing spiritual stream out of
which these people develop. Individually these people according
to today's sense of the word could be honourable men —
honourable men they all are when I remind myself of
Shakespeare's dramas — but this is irrelevant. I don't
want to attach anything to these people personally. For example
it doesn't include someone like the priest Kully who actually
is the product of certain streams within the Catholic
Church.

This is how things must be considered at all costs in today's
serious time in which we stand. This is what we must consider
under all circumstances. We must develop a spiritual eye, above
all, for every decadent spiritual movement, which needs to be
identified, characterized. We need clarity regarding today's
world situation: amongst quite a large number of people it is
simply the case that spiritual science is seen for itself and
everything within the content of their lives is made to come
out of spiritual science. Above all, when you could search and
find proof of what is growing within today's youth then you'll
have to say to yourself: these youths inherently have definite
inclinations and abilities for which spiritual science is
allowed to appear as something natural. On the other hand is
the curiosity that there are still enough forces to hold down
what actually wants to rise to the surface of existence just as
we see it in politics.

Do
you believe for instance that in the defeated or conqueror's
countries there aren't innumerable individuals who, if they
somehow could be brought to act, they wouldn't be able to do
something sensible? There are certainly many such people but
you don't encounter them because those connected to all old,
degenerating world and life attitudes (Weltanschauungen) and
who have caused this misfortune, are repeatedly thrown back
with an iron fist to the surface. As long as one doesn't get
the insight that it is quite impossible to do something with
people who come out of old spiritual streams, even when they
are in radical parties of the present, as long as one deals
with those who have grown out of feeble minded and old
spiritual structures, one will get no further. We need to
maintain actual new forces, and those who are running the show
are holding these forces back.

This is generally happening in spiritual life. We must draw a
thick line between what wants to be worked at into today's
youth out of the world, and whoever occupied the professorial
chair and given the stamp of approval in the exam. This causes
terrible pressure. Insight must develop for the content held by
the examiner and the learned chair-person for what is involved
here, because no lucid insight can arise for what is absolutely
needed today. Pessimism says something, the forces are simply
not there, it is not permitted. Only once we allow something to
happen can we make it possible to get out of degeneration. Is
it any use then that we conduct such a beautiful university
course? Certainly, we can inspire several young individuals
— that actually happened and will happen many times in
the future. These young people are inspired for a time but they
grow up in an environment of exams and philistinism and of
course need to earn their daily bread because they will not
manage otherwise and thus their development is of course
weighed down and prevented from real striving and creativity in
future. These things must be inspected thoroughly and on this
track something must be done in order to overcome these things.
We can't do this if today, during these earnest times of
development, mankind as well as also our Anthroposophical
movement refrain from reflecting that these things are present.
This kind of thing is aptly depicted in this “Tat”
publication.

You
see we need to give attention to how these things which grow
out of the basis of spiritual science come from thoughts of
broad reality. For everything, when it comes down to it, is the
main thread found in a far wider line of argument. In my book
“Riddles of the Soul” I point out these Dessoir
talents: Dessoir relates a very naive and quite beautiful
example of his extraordinary spiritual predisposition in his
“Schandbuch” (Book of Shame?) which he wrote and
which has found much recognition in the world, that it can
happen to him while in the middle of lecturing and immersed
within his thoughts, he suddenly is unable to continue. Now, I
find this a quite extraordinarily characteristic for such
thought, that it can be thought and thought and suddenly can't
continue. Yes indeed! I find this extraordinarily
characteristic ... (Gap in short-hand notes). It is even a
precondition that one can't regard him as a serious scholar, is
that not so; one comes across such people today, who create
something like the “Tat.”

The
publisher of the “Tat” is the former Eugen
Diederichs. I once came across a collection which Diederichs
held to former students, where the discussion was led by Max
Scheler as main speaker. Some time before that Diederichs had
written to me with the request of wanting to publish one of my
books. It was either in 1902 or 1903. The one he wanted was
“Christianity as Mystical Fact” which had been
published before already. In front of the word
“Theosophy” he winced. The next day he wanted to
speak to me. This conversation dealt with a publisher's concern
out of which nothing came because obviously, nothing could come
out of Diederichs ... (Gap in short-hand notes). He said
— the mystical writing of Plotin, as well as other
mystics should much rather be fostered because, regarding the
general wellbeing of mankind, these make such a particularly
good impression. It is just like when one drinks sweet wine or
something similar and it runs in such a soulful manner through
the entire human organism. — And one can hardly abstain
from having the thought of him sitting there with rather a full
little belly trying to digest the mystical by slapping his full
belly with his flat hands!

Later every Mister Mystic supported the “Tat,” and
the second publication in 1921 contained nothing other than an
article on Anthroposophy, firstly one which was actually
written by someone who had been elected by certain communities
for the particular battle against Anthroposophy. What he wrote
is combined out of pure impertinence and nonsense: I.W. Hauer:
“Anthroposophy as the way to the Spirit.” —
As second article appeared a refutation of the first from
Walter Johannes Stein, “Anthroposophy as monism
and as theosophy,” because Diederichs wanted to
illustrate his objectivity. Of course he also invited
supporters because they were within it all, they were people
who read it and obviously were immediately convinced that
Diederichs was an objective man, who allows both opponents and
supporters to have their say. The distinction is that among the
supporter articles a really well written one came from a man,
Wil Salewski, “The Goetheanum in Dornach near
Basel and the Anthroposophical High School course in Autumn
1920.” Certainly some good articles appeared in it but
particularly those written by opponents show a grand stupidity,
an absolute misunderstanding for what really should work
through Anthroposophy, what it means and so on.

Quite tragic-comic, even joking, I might say, however is a
discussion which the publisher Eugen Diederichs presents,
entitled: “Towards an Anthroposophic Special
Edition.” Permit me to quote the slime: “This
booklet is the research from fruitful, striving discussions of
religious men who preside over the non-confessional, within the
circles of anthroposophic thought, and the director of this
movement, Dr Rudolf Steiner. How such an attempt comes across
depends on the personality traits found amongst members. I must
confess, despite all efforts I was not successful in attracting
the Steiner followers into a stronger collaboration.”

I
wanted, but they didn't fall for it, not for Diederichs to
compliment his “Tat” with something which comes
right out of our circles.

“One could say, it is based perhaps on their relation
lacking `humility' in the sense of Mennickes, yet as publisher
I feel it my duty to be quite impartial and state facts. I hope
however that later, another anthroposophist from the priest's
rank, Rittelmeyer, will contrast his own serious Christ
experience in opposition to those of Michel, Gogarten and
Mennicke.

“As private person I can only admit that up to now I have
not succeeded to acquire an affirming position regarding
Anthroposophy.”

It
doesn't appear to taste like sweet wine and thus can only be
run down!

“I personally stand completely with Mennikes' point of
view that Anthroposophy is the end point of materialism as well
as rationalism and as a result this end point indicates no new
developments. This doesn't exclude that it can be a
transformative constructive phenomenon with new construction
and that it therefore contains all kinds of worth, like
constructive eclecticism built on values of the past.
Anthroposophy doesn't appear to me as coming directly
....” — what is `direct' in this case is at most
working from an inaccurately active gastric acid —
“and therefore also doesn't give any evidence —
despite all the talk about intuition, creativity and Goethe's
observation. I know the Theosophists claim this assertion as
their highest lack of understanding nevertheless it is spoken
out in a singular attitude of secret subconscious
powers.”

Regarding this `attitude', I've already spoken to you about it!
“So I see from this personal attitude (which should
absolutely not be an attack on Anthroposophy, but only a
confession).”

Really, it is not very nice, because now someone who is smart
enough will say: `He isn't attacking Anthroposophy.' — He
is apparently indifferent whether he attacks it or not. Thus he
says: “So I see ... it is a danger for the mental
investment of the upcoming Germany, and is urgently necessary,
not only for the readership of the `Tat,' but above all for the
youth with Rudolf Steiner and with those of his spreading
movement that it is intellectually dealt with. Because today it
has become so close that we need to save ourselves from the
chaos of our new development in a safe tower.”

Governments have sometimes saved themselves in “safe
towers” during revolutions and riots; something can be
said about that! Now however the publisher ends with: “My
colleague Ernst Michel, well known to readers of this newspaper
through his Goethean sayings and books, in this issue about
Anthroposophy is faced with Catholic God- and
World-feelings.”

Now, I ask you to listen even more carefully, because then you
will notice what I have already characterized for you out of
the most varied backgrounds the experience of Catholicism in an
apparent rejuvenated gesture becoming a kind of
Catholic-Dadaism, finding shelter under Eugen Diederichs in the
“Tat.” “His article forms a prelude to the
April edition which will connect with the Sonderheft of
the Catholic youth movement.”

So
this is what I mean when I call it the Catholic-Dadaistic
movement. I don't say this without foundation because I
immediately want to introduce you to something from Ernst
Michel's article: “Anthroposophy and Christianity”
and through this have the opportunity to familiarize you with a
representative of religious Dadaism.

“It gives me particular satisfaction to have the
opportunity to take the Catholic publication with its
predominantly Protestant readers of the `Tat' and measure the
Protestant individualism against the Roman Catholic community
spirit. I hope that out of all the intellectual discussions the
basic idea of the `Tat' gets support: the strengthening of its
feeling for responsibility for its own development and as a
result for the nation as a whole.”

These are the words of Mr Eugen Diederichs. Here, therefore, is
a statement of the young catholic movement, which was given out
of the prelude of Ernst Michel's article: “Anthroposophy
and Christianity.” I have often indicated, also in the
last two studies pointed out with great energy, what actually
threatens the modern spiritual life from this side. However,
now this article of Ernst Michel in the “Tat,”
entitled “Anthroposophy and Christianity” is
actually total religious Dadaism. The oldest catholic branch of
Roman Catholic Christianity is here puffed out to its readers
in bombastic words. Extraordinarily interesting discoveries can
actually be made regarding this religious Dadaism. For example
Ernst Michel noticed a basic truth of Christianity: “It
is a basic Christian truth that a person with original sin
against God, inherited through blood and essentially enraptured
by conditions of sanctification, is unable to extricate himself
through his own forces: that he has the independent inclination
of wanting to rise to a higher stage of humanity; that the
break through from one condition to the next, despite the
original cause, appear as real procreative acts of God to this
willing creature.”

So
many words, so many sentences! — Each sentence can be
sifted through and a childish confession found towards a
`catholic catechism'. It's interesting that according to Ernst
Michel it isn't up to single individuals to discover a final
spiritual truth. You have just heard how it depends on
`successful outcomes' and so it `breaks through'. A person
receives this through grace and then breaks through. One needs
to submit to this. A person should not out of his own kind of
higher truth strive by claiming: “There is no spiritual
development; there is only development and a successful
outcome, a break-through.”

It
is exceptionally nice how Ernst Michel from this standpoint of
Dadaistic catechism says: yes, with dogmas there is something
else, they have to be believed as truths! — “Dogmas
are not formulated by a person or the community as their basic
religious experience (as in `addressing God') but God, the head
of the church, speaks as Holy Ghost directly and immediately
through the visible church ...”

Thus the fathers of the councils, who are united, or even the
Pope who speaks ex cathedra, is not a single person, not so?
Now to go into excess, invoke the Dadaism of religion on top of
holy Paul who had also said that the single human being dare
not research the final truths: “At this point we can
listen to the words of St Paul to the Corinthians without the
fear of Gnostic interpretation: What we are talking about is
God's secret wisdom, that which is hidden, which God prescribed
for all times for our glory, which none of the rulers if this
world has acknowledged ... to us however God is revealed
through the spirit because the spirit explores all things, even
God's depths. Speaking of people — who of you know the
inner being of someone according to how the spirit lives in
him? Just so nobody has ever fathomed the depth of God as the
spirit of God. Yet we haven't received the spirit of the world
but the spirit which comes out of God, in order for us to
understand what gift God has given us ...” and so on.

Now
you see, when these words of Paul are stated in the way of
Anthroposophy, it all appears to agree. When however one is
forbidden to somehow come to the truth through the spirit and
then quote these words, one must be a religious Dadaist. It is
the same with the description of the Christ experience and so
on. In such minds it naturally will not be considered. In
worldly minds it may be considered but of course what
Anthroposophy has to say about Christ will not enter into such
minds. This is where the circulating nonsense comes from which
covers the Christ problem in relation to what Anthroposophy has
to say about it. Of course one finds the Ernst Michel type who
has to say one should have a religious relationship and out of
this relationship so to say comes even such expressions as the
“great crowds” which I quoted to you before. It's
true, this is a particular style of expression.

On
the contrary this article of Dadaistic aspects in religious
affairs indulges particularly in scolding my style. This is
exactly characteristic of such plump, grimy fingers which just
don't manage to arrive at what is really necessary — to
state spiritual truths. For this it is necessary to have a
certain uncomfortable style. It is necessary to exit from such
Dadaistic bombast as Ernst Michel depicts. Understandably my
mysteries mean nothing to Ernst Michel. He understands
absolutely nothing about it. He says for example:
“Mystery certainly doesn't come from the
naked-extrasensory: whoever looks for it there is a
materialist, just as much as someone who looks for it in
matter. No mystery is created by taking ideas of ghosts or
magical wonders, dressing them in conceptual clothing and
presenting them on stage under the theme of `Reality'. No
indeed, the secret lies in the creative combination of nature
and spirit into an indescribable gesture ...”

Now, just imagine such “indescribable gestures” and
then say to yourself: “in the unity of matter and form,
from power and direction” in the “emerging form,
the living develops itself,” this is of course a quote
from Goethe! Now comes the sentence — and you must retain
the relevant Dadaistic-religious correlation here in order to
tolerate it at all, and not only allow this to be considered as
slimy when it must be rolled on the tongue or give it an even
stronger instigation — “Speech is the
mystery,” yes, it is stated thus in one sentence:
“Speech is the mystery, the Son of Man Jesus Christ is
the mystery.” You see, you can well understand that the
style in which Anthroposophical literature is presented
throughout isn't created in this style and it then becomes
obvious in copied lectures which have not been corrected by me,
that something else can be expressed. It doesn't matter that
this is pointed out, how it is in fact quite a strong piece
when Diederichs presents the entire nation with such things as
a “sense of responsibility,” and as a result
transfer the necessity to have a good look at what is
transferred by not analysing it a bit more finely. It is really
extraordinary when such a Dadaist of religions claims, that
such a transfer of inner reality in sound and rhythm in the
element of speech, was not connected with me. He then refers to
two people where such a transfer has taken place; Nietzsche and
Hölderlin. Typical of such a gossipmonger who has no
feeling for the spiritual life, when confronted with difficult
spiritual content and is challenged by his life's hindrances,
he changes his style to that of Nietzsche and Hölderlin,
and in this style tragic elements emerge just as they do in
Nietzsche and Hölderlin today. The entire wicked
thoughtlessness of this contemporary bunch appears precisely at
such a point; they have neither any feeling for the tragedy of
a Hölderlin or Nietzsche, nor for the necessity of an
objective style, which is necessary in bringing to expression
spiritual truths and spiritual facts. It is necessary today to
point out that once one has shifted into a position to examine
such Diederichs-gossipmongers, it must be done in an energetic
way. One must see out of which sewers such Dadaism springs
today which appears as the Anthroposophical opposition cloaked
in the mantel of objectivity and from where it gets its
spiritual nourishment.

These things can't be expressed in a different way than this,
in these present serious times, because it should not appear in
the attitude amongst Anthroposophist that such
“objectivity” is different to a refinement in what
Anthroposophy is and what lives in her, sunk in her very ground
and soil. People like Ernst Michel and their religious Dadaism
as well as a Eugen Diederichs and his stomach-mysticism
obviously don't have the slightest inkling. This is what we
must be aware of and what we need to examine. Today it is
necessary to give rise to a serious attitude towards language
and not be pulled into something which presents itself to the
world in this way. It must be said and must appear in all forms
in the world that exactly through what is presented in this way
as spiritual striving, mankind becomes gradually increasingly
drawn into degeneration, into the morass, and that it is
necessary for Anthroposophy to remain standing in work which is
pure and not be familiar with something which flourishes in a
decaying society.

It
fails to interest me when something praiseworthy appears
because I give neither praise nor reproach from something
incompetent — while the will is incompetent but not the
mind — which Anthroposophy wants to heal in mankind. This
religious Dadaism of course can't do otherwise than come up
with such sentences as: “The power in which people grow
up as the foundation of the mystery of faith is also not first
in the line of knowledge but in the show of the continued and
ever deeper show of introduced love.”

With that nothing other is meant but soulful sensuality which
these people keep in mind and which is not supported by what
appears in pure spiritual creativity today, where there is no
place for these soul-spiritual distortions into religious
sexual Dadaism, which, when it also appears under all possible
guises, is nothing other than the shameless living of soul
sensuality which a good many disguise as religious, but which
is nothing other than the shameless living in soulful
sensuality.

Against this we must evermore be clear that for once in our
time something, when it is allowed to come through, can unfold
despite all these oppositions, and can penetrate into the real
understanding of spiritual life which is creatively active in
material life. We must evermore be clear that we need care in
the present for existing abilities in people; we must
thoroughly, with every fibre of our soul dedicate this care and
that no nuance of seriousness is strong enough to describe the
devoted energy required in order to make progress on this path.
Here no compromises can be chosen. Duty must be done. Obviously
everywhere where Anthroposophy wants to be heard, Anthroposophy
must be heard: our duty must be done. We must not allow the
slightest illusion to come about in any way. It is necessary to
work out of things themselves without compromise. Every one of
us has the obligation, as far as possible, to work out of
ourselves towards the recovery of the Anthroposophical
movement, that it may extract itself from every kind of
outsider tendency, from every pettiness, and that it leaves
behind any emotional, sensual mysticism, that it really
penetrates through to a free contemporary well-informed
understanding of existential mysteries. Because only then, when
we have seized the mysteries of existence in this way, can it
be worked through the soul into practical life which still has
to be mastered in order not to become a hindrance towards
further progressive development of mankind. Exactly in this
last arena the human being is misunderstood in some way. What
doesn't all have to happen to distort things most shamelessly!
In the well known “Berlin Daily Newspaper” an
article was fabricated regarding all sorts of sewer-like stuff
which in Berlin is claimed as fortune telling and predictions
of the most idiotic manner and in the middle of it all is a
reference to Anthroposophy and myself. This article has been
sent out into the world. It appears in both English and Swiss
publications. In the most infamous, shameless manner this
fabricated article is working towards the destruction of the
Anthroposophical point of view. It is precisely this that must
be seen through, for by merely presenting some opposition will
not suffice; the culprits themselves must be characterized.
Obviously it would not be so difficult to get through this if
the very basis out of which all this stuff is rising is
characterized and a mirror held up so they can see their own
identity. This is essentially what is necessary and what
becomes increasingly necessary. We can't restrict ourselves by
placing a kind of anthroposophic dogma on the one side and
raise a defence on the other when opposition comes along, but
we need to examine everything which is active in the
stupefaction and degeneration directed at humanity. This
appears very, very often. We need to reiterate this to
ourselves every morning in some way, expressed in truth and
without fanaticism. I have not in fact spoken about these thing
exactly in this way, and I seldom reason, and previously seldom
reasoned about these things, but now it has become more
frequent because actually your gaze must be directed towards
such childish prattle which flows out of the entire decadence
of our time, like this fabricated article in Berlin, which is
now doing the rounds in the world, like other things also do
the rounds, and we really have unbelievable much to do if we
want to oppose these things. We could in fact work for twenty
four hours against this shameful witnessing. Then the
Frohnmeyers come along and say that what they had written was
never presented as disapproval. Dr Boos disproved it, had
written to the relevant editor, and the editor actually didn't
accept the refutation and thus Frohnmeyer had afterwards
removed some of it out of the publication which the relevant
priest who had been there had seen, and had told a lie; so the
reply had simply never been accepted. Consequently, I believe,
further correspondence took place in which no mention was made
of it, that this reply was made and no comment given. We will
really have to be very active if we want to oppose all these
things. It is a comfort to a Frohnmeyer or Heinzelmann to focus
on something or other they wish to say which doesn't correlate
in any way to reality, the relevant item borrowed, letting one
believe that it is the truth. Whoever writes something has the
duty to do research, to investigate the source.

With these kinds of people who develop constantly out of malice
and also a predominant ignorance in their point of view, one
finds no end by mere opposition. Essentially it pertains to the
spiritual basis which can be found everywhere and really place
this in a truthful light.

(Gap in short-hand notes — the closing words follow:)

With reference to these things and not from personal grounds I
would like to mention that since April 1919 I have given
countless lectures in Stuttgart which contained the most
important economic facts and truths as well as giving
references to characteristic contemporary spiritual streams
which should be exploited. Throughout it is stressed that
important material is about to be revealed. — it is
“defiled.” Items are printed and sent to members of
the tripartite circle and the tripartite unions and are read in
small circles. Whatever appears sophisticated is made
sectarian. Anyone who is interested in this is wronged because
things are not taken up but handled this way.

Basically this is lost work, directed towards something like
this — which is actually so far-fetched — if it is
not grasped, not laboured further, not worked out in this
sense.

Above all else, this is what is really needed today!

It
is not only unacceptable that these things are read in a
sectarian way in small circles, but these are the things which
can be worked through further. Everywhere are growing points
for further work! One could ask, why should one work further on
something when it simply lies there as printed material, and no
one is seriously worrying about it any further? This is what it
is about: when it is studied further one can really do extended
research into what becomes special within it. This is needed,
the further research into the seeds which are given on earth.
This is the real active work: by lifting our movement out of
any sectarian signs and then taking things simply as they are
and allowing them to again enter into sectarianism, we won't
make any progress. The content of anthroposophically orientated
spiritual science is actually not suitable for some or other
sectarian movement; the content is something which can by all
means convey the impulse for having an effect in the world.

For
this to happen it is absolutely necessary that everyone join
forces. Today we are confronted with the necessity that things
need practical application. We will not progress if this is not
earnestly accepted, if nothing is really comprehended as to how
the true spirit also penetrates into actual practical
applications.

Then something must be done in such a way which doesn't defile
it but instead that it is grasped and actively pursued in a
lively way, proving itself.

Now
I still want to say this in conclusion: No one, really no one
needs to feel affected by these things. Only in a time in
which, as I have recently quoted, it is this possible that
publications opposing anthroposophical spiritual science as
well as opposing its actions can they end by saying: there is
enough spiritual sparks and they are necessary because also the
actual, physical fire sparks should descend on this Dornach
hill — during a time when malice is basically attributed
to superficiality, is it a time for serious words by all
means.

For
this reason I asked you to come here once again. Don't take me
amiss when the opportunity came along for me to utter some
really earnest words! Before this journey I simply had to bring
this to your hearts, to your minds, to your consciousness!